Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Scholencia]

Well, slaves and gays didnt have natural right which they really wanted. So,we have in the past slaves fighting for their freedom. Why havent gays demanded legal marriages and adotion of kids in the past? Do you get it know?

Homosexuals had the same rights as any other citizen back then. Your argument is invalid.

No, they didnt. They could not adopt childern or have marriages.

[Mavorpen]

Legal benefits. Marriage has ALWAYS been about economic benefits in a large part.

Yes, so why didnt they want the same thing 2000 years ago?

Because marriages were arranged in such a way where the woman would become subservient to the male's family, usually by arranged marriages. Sure would complicate things if it was two males.

[Objectiveland]

A genetic defect is niether right nor wrong. The problem is to understand the cause, and the more we understand these biological factors, the closer we get to being able to change them.

[Raeyh]

It's not. Everyone has the right to be whatever sexuality they want.

Doesn't tend to be something people do because they want to.

"I had sex with a bunch of guys, but I felt terribly conflicted about it." Is that it?

[Mavorpen]

For example Alexander the Great supposed to be gay, why didnt he just married some another gay king and made his empire greater but he married the persian princess instead.

Riiight, because kings totally didn't want heirs or anything.

[Scholencia]

Yes, so why didnt they want the same thing 2000 years ago?

Because marriages were arranged in such a way where the woman would become subservient to the male's family, usually by arranged marriages. Sure would complicate things if it was two males.

The homosexual Alexander entered a hetero marriage. Are you sure that nobody forced him to marry a women?

[Tenden]

I find it interesting that God says "Man shall not lay with man," but dosen't say ''Woman shall not lay with woman."

[Mavorpen]

A genetic defect is niether right nor wrong. The problem is to understand the cause, and the more we understand these biological factors, the closer we get to being able to change them.

Why is your name "objectiveland" when you make posts like this, that are subjective?

[Divair]

A genetic defect is niether right nor wrong. The problem is to understand the cause, and the more we understand these biological factors, the closer we get to being able to change them.

Why is your name "objectiveland" when you make posts like this, that are subjective?

He's an Ayn Rand worshipper. Ayn Rand hated homosexuals.

[Veceria]

Homosexuals had the same rights as any other citizen back then. Your argument is invalid.

No, they didnt. They could not adopt childern or have marriages.

Show me the laws stating that. Why should they, anyways?

[Mavorpen]

Because marriages were arranged in such a way where the woman would become subservient to the male's family, usually by arranged marriages. Sure would complicate things if it was two males.

The homosexual Alexander entered a hetero marriage. Are you sure that nobody forced him to marry a women?

Something forced him to. Like, I don't know, the desire for an heir?

[Farnhamia]

A genetic defect difference is niether neither right nor wrong. The problem is to understand the cause, and the more we understand these biological factors, the closer we get to being able to change them.

I fixed that for you. Objectively, the genetic difference that is expressed in homosexuality is just that, a difference. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, which the word "defect" implies.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

A genetic defect is niether right nor wrong. The problem is to understand the cause, and the more we understand these biological factors, the closer we get to being able to change them.

You're assuming that changing it is inherently right, which means you're assuming that it in itself is "less right", or wrong.

[Mavorpen]

Why is your name "objectiveland" when you make posts like this, that are subjective?

He's an Ayn Rand worshipper. Ayn Rand hated homosexuals.

...I've been gone too long.

[Farnhamia]

I find it interesting that God says "Man shall not lay with man," but dosen't say ''Woman shall not lay with woman."

Because lesbians are hawt. And no, you can't watch.

[Mavorpen]

I find it interesting that God says "Man shall not lay with man," but dosen't say ''Woman shall not lay with woman."

Because lesbians are hawt. And no, you can't watch.

That's fine, just listening is a reward in itself.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A genetic defect is niether right nor wrong. The problem is to understand the cause, and the more we understand these biological factors, the closer we get to being able to change them.

Is being left-handed a defect? How about having red hair? These variances occur in a smaller percentage of the population than homosexuality, and yet we no longer have people thinking that either trait is evil. Why? Because eventually we realized that not every variation in human beings is necessarily a sign of something wrong with said human beings.

[Divair]

He's an Ayn Rand worshipper. Ayn Rand hated homosexuals.

...I've been gone too long.

The name should have been a clue, but understandable. Check his post history (warning: it's dangerous)

[Scholencia]

Perhaps they didn't need to do so, as they weren't denied any rights based on their sexual orientation.

So, do you agree that homosexuals in the past followed the mainstream believes of the societies and considered gay marriages as immoral?

the big deal? Are homosexuals bothering you? I doubt you're old enough to be married but on the off-chance you are, does the thought of homosexual marriage somehow make your own marriage feel dirty? Or do you just parrot what some guy on the radio or some other guy in a pulpit tells you?

Ad homines attacks are really unpollite, if you cannot have a properly debate please ignore me.

[Ifreann]

Homosexuals had the same rights as any other citizen back then. Your argument is invalid.

No, they didnt. They could not adopt childern or have marriages.

Was formal adoption even a thing 2000 years ago? Could anyone actually adopt a child?

[Volnotova]

If you're referring to the Bible, I think that God disapproves of homosexuality because gay people can't reproduce.

I am bisexual.

That makes me both gay and "straight".

I can reproduce(and have the desire to).

I find it interesting that God says "Man shall not lay with man," but dosen't say ''Woman shall not lay with woman."

Do not lie with mankind as with womankind(or something along those lines), regardless the original Hebrew is (even) something different.

Homosexuals are just another minority to blame one's problems on. Just look at the history of homophobia and how it developed over time.

[Dominion of Nova Scotia]

No, they didnt. They could not adopt childern or have marriages.

Show me the laws stating that. Why should they, anyways?

Because same-sex couples want to get married and want to have children?

[Mavorpen]

So, do you agree that homosexuals in the past followed the mainstream believes of the societies and considered gay marriages as immoral?

No? They didn't give a shit about it.

[Ammar]

A genetic defect is niether right nor wrong. The problem is to understand the cause, and the more we understand these biological factors, the closer we get to being able to change them.

By that logic we should turn heterosexuals into homos because it is a genetic defect.

[Divair]

No, they didnt. They could not adopt childern or have marriages.

Was formal adoption even a thing 2000 years ago? Could anyone actually adopt a child?

Only royals, no?